URBAN HERITAGE VALUE AND SEISMIC VULNERABILITY … · construc Ţii – no. 1 / 2015 30 urban...

CONSTRUCŢII – No. 1 / 2015

30

URBAN HERITAGE VALUE AND SEISMIC VULNERABILITY MAPPING:

CHALLENGES FOR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL

ASSESSMENTS. CASE STUDY OF A PROTECTED AREA IN BUCHAREST,

ROMANIA

Emil-Sever GEORGESCU

1, Cristina Olga GOCIMAN

2,

Iolanda Gabriela CRAIFALEANU 3, Tiberiu FLORESCU

4, Cristian MOSCU

5,

Mihaela Stela GEORGESCU 6, Claudiu-Sorin DRAGOMIR

7

1 Dr Eng., National Research and Development Institute URBAN-INCERC and European Center for

Buildings Rehabilitation - ECBR, Bucharest, Romania, [email protected] 2 Prof. Dr. Arch., University of Architecture and Urbanism „Ion Mincu”, Bucharest, Romania,

[email protected]

3 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eng., National Research and Development Institute URBAN-INCERC, European

Center for Buildings Rehabilitation- ECBR and Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest,

Romania, [email protected] 4 Prof. Dr. Arch., University of Architecture and Urbanism „Ion Mincu”, Bucharest, Romania,

[email protected] 5 PhD Student, University of Architecture and Urbanism „Ion Mincu”, Bucharest, Romania

6 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eng., University of Architecture and Urbanism „Ion Mincu”, Bucharest, Romania,

[email protected] 7 Dr. Eng., National Research and Development Institute URBAN-INCERC, European Center for

Buildings Rehabilitation -ECBR, Bucharest, Romania and University of Agronomic Science and

Veterinary Medicine Bucharest, [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The paper evaluates the urban heritage situation

at almost four decades after the Bucharest,

March 4, 1977 earthquake disaster, followed by a

razing of the present Civic Center area and a

large-scale remodeling project. The first results

of the URBASRISK Project (2012) are presented

as a contribution to a new multi-hazard paradigm

to cope with European urban scale threats,

especially in heritage areas, with a case study of

a historic zone now designated as protected area.

The cultural and utility value was identified and

graded on specific scales for further analysis and

mapping. For this phase of study some data of

1977 were adjusted to express the vulnerability

by the Mean Damage Degree, GA, with a

possibility to make corrections after visual

inspection. The URBASRISKdb geodatabase

was created for storing the attributes of the

buildings. The basic source, i.e. the ESRI World

Street Map layer, was verified against satellite,

aerial and street views freely available online

from various providers. The final version of the

map was obtained by also considering

information obtained by field visits.

Keywords: heritage; vulnerability; risk mapping

REZUMAT

Articolul evaluează situaţia patrimoniului urban,

la aproape 4 decenii de la dezastrul seismic din 4

martie 1977, urmat de demolarea zonei

prezentului Centru Civic din Bucureşti. Primele

rezultate ale Proiectului URBASRISK (2012)

sunt prezentate ca o contribuţie la o nouă

paradigmă de abordare multi-hazard, pentru a

face faţă ameninţărilor europene la scară urbană,

în special în zonele de patrimoniu, cu un studiu

de caz al unei zone istorice, în prezent arie

protejată. Valoarea culturală şi de utilitate a fost

identificata şi clasificată pe scări specifice pentru

analize suplimentare şi cartografiere. Pentru

această fază a studiului, unele date din 1977 au

fost ajustate pentru a exprima vulnerabilitatea

prin Gradul Mediu de Avariere, cu posibilitatea

de a face corecţii după inspecţia vizuală a zonei.

A fost creată baza de date URBASRISKdb

pentru stocarea atributelor clădirilor. Sursa de

bază a fost ESRI World Street Map layer,

verificată prin imagini satelitare, aeriene şi

stradale, disponibile gratuit on-line. Versiunea

finală a hărţii a fost obţinută prin luarea în

considerare a informaţiilor obţinute pe teren.

Cuvinte cheie: patrimoniu, vulnerabilitate,

cartare riscuri

Urban heritage value and seismic vulnerability mapping. Case study of a protected area in Bucharest, Romania


31

1. INTRODUCTION

As a result of March 4, 1977 earthquake,

90% of the killed, 67% of the injured, and

70% of 2 billion US Dollars economic losses

were in Bucharest. Damage to constructions

were of over 69,4% of total, while housing

was 71,4% of construction losses (Berg et al,

1980; Balan et al., 1982; World Bank, 1978).

Unfortunately, although the heavy damage was

elsewhere, the 1977 earthquake was used by

the communist regime as a pretext for the

razing of some urban heritage, followed by a

large-scale remodeling project, as in the

present huge area of Bucharest Civic Center,

with Parliament Palace as a central item. For a

while, some part of the area was not built, just

because some other priorities existed at

frontlines.

After the political changes of the 1990’s,

the fabric of a huge area was left partly as a

ghost-town, although private property was

regained. In this context, the initial results of

the URBASRISK Project (2012) are presented,

with a case study of this historic zone of

Bucharest, partly demolished three decades

ago by and now designated as protected area

(Gociman et al., 2012; 2014; URBASRISK

Project, www. http://www.uauim.ro/...).

The ongoing project (2012-2016) is

presented as a contribution to a new multi-

hazard paradigm to cope with European urban

scale threats, especially in heritage areas. Our

habitat must be treated as an ecosystem

(Gociman, 2006), but the protected areas

cannot be treated like a usual neighborhood.

The dense fabric puts many problems to

provide safety and avoid further destructions

or marginalization. On the other hand, there is

need for community implication against any

risk that impinges on the architectural and

urban ecosystem.

The case of Bucharest was approached, in

the past, as a desperate appeal to the entire

world (Giurascu, 1989) or as a contemporary

parallel with the situation of cities like Paris,

Moscow, Berlin and Rome under authoritarian

or totalitarian regimes, when the major

heritage was in part or wholly affected

(Cavalcanti, 1997). The bitter case and success

story of the reconstruction of the city of

Skopje after the 1963 disaster (Milutinovici,

2001), versus nowadays critical opinions about

the lost heritage, was presented elsewhere

(Georgescu et al., 2013). The lessons of the

earthquake disasters of L’Aquila, Italy (2009),

New Zealand (2010 and 2011), Lorca, Murcia,

Spain (2011) and Emilia, Italy (2012) are a

proof that there is a need to protect heritage

both before and after seismic events.

The paper will present the concept and

preliminary results of the project, concerning

available knowledge from earthquake

engineering, architecture and urban planning

to be used. On the other hand, any approach

depends on available usual and IT tools for

assessment and mapping of relevant hazards

and exposure of elements for vulnerability

assessment and impact scenarios.

2. METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS

In its first stage, the research investigated

the current situation, in terms of cultural and

functional value, that gives the identity

dimension and the safety, stability and

environment as state value (vulnerability). As

final objectives, one takes into account

methodologies of setting out territorial

intervention multilevel decision-making in

direct relationship with the identity and

vulnerability value. The evaluation

methodology is applied to a pilot area.

The cultural value was assessed by 13

criteria and grading artistic, architectural,

urbanistic, functional, structural, technical

execution, decorative, furnishing conception,

local, religious, ethnical, seniority, historical,

political or memorial references (Gociman et

al., 2014).

The basic earthquake hazard was

considered in terms of zoning maps and local

site conditions, while any other particular

natural or technological hazards have been

listed and weighted in terms of their impact.

Concerning the vulnerability assessment,

due to the specific of old built stock, detailed

analytical approach was not feasible. To be

coherent with other partners’ approaches and

their scaling, in this project it was required a

Georgescu E.-S., Gociman C.O., Craifaleanu I.-G., Florescu T., Moscu C., Georgescu M.S., Dragomir C.S.


32

one-number description of structural

vulnerability.

The European approaches of vulnerability

evaluation methods used in Mediterranean

area since the 1980’s have been evaluated

(Benedetti, Benzoni and Parisi, 1988;

Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi 2006; Guéguen,

Michel and LeCorre, 2007, Achs and Adam,

2012; Karakostas et al., 2012). It was

concluded that each method is highly

dependent on local patterns of heritage

buildings and their direct use is not reliable.

An attempt to use the rapid visual screening of

USA type was considered in terms of

principles, but in all cases and countries the

vulnerability data from past investigations

were predominant.

The Romanian Code P100-3/2008

requires quite a great amount of data and needs

much time per building evaluation. In order to

avoid such conceptual or practical hindering, it

was decided to start from the local data

gathered in Bucharest after March 4, 1977

earthquake.

Concerning the mapping methods for built

stock and vulnerability, the references of the

last decade indicate the satellite applications

and GIS systems, with specific databases, as

most appropriate (Taubenböck, 2011). Such

data allow automated updating of maps when

some attributes are changing, as well as

specific reports and syntheses (Craifaleanu et

al., 2008).

3. THE STUDY AREA: BUILDINGS

PATTERNS IN TERMS OF PHYSICAL

STATE, HERITAGE AND MEMORY

VALUE

The study area has the shape of a large

triangle, in front of the present Romanian

Parliament and near important governmental

institutions, being located on (former)

Dambovita River drained marshes, with high

water table. The local building stock consists

mostly of masonry residential houses from

1900’s to 1980’s and of low- to mid-rise

housing blocks erected between 1930 and

1950 (see buildings in Figures 1-9 and maps in

Figures 10 and 11).

Fig. 1 a. Belfry of Antim Monastery, major heritage, built at 1715 (Photo E. S. Georgescu)

Fig. 1 b. Sinodal Palace, major heritage, was translated towards the monastery precinct in the

1980’s (Photo E. S. Georgescu)

In the study area, the multi-hazard could

be represented by earthquakes with or without

additional hazards, as: floods or rising damp in

walls, snow, strong wind, fire and gas pipes

explosions, hazardous substance release from

industry, and also from terrorist attacks to

some institutions.

The study area suffered damage in 1940

and 1977 earthquakes and some buildings

ranked in seismic risk classes exist. In the

1980’s, a curtain of high-rise reinforced

concrete buildings have been built along the

new broad street fronts, cut over the former

urban fabric.



33

Fig. 2 a. Schitul Maicilor Church, major heritage, which was moved in the 1980’s from the

demolished precinct to let space for Parliament, and left hidden between new high-rise blocks and

old houses

Fig. 2 b. St. Ilie Rahova Church, major heritage, that was translated from the present Unirii Blvd.

path and left surrounded and aggressed by neighboring blocks (Photo E. S. Georgescu)

Fig. 3 a. Heritage buildings with residential function near Antim Monastery, recently rehabilitated

(Photo E. S. Georgescu)

Fig. 3 b. Heritage buildings with residential function on Justiţiei St., recently rehabilitated


Fig. 4. Masonry houses that resisted earthquakes but are now threatened by lack of maintenance, as the ownership situation and financial ability are at

stake on Justiţiei St. (Photo E. S. Georgescu)

The vulnerability of the area confirms the

conclusion of Rashed et al. (2003) about the

dependence of this factor on human behavior.



34

Although the aging and decay were natural up

to a certain point, the razing policy of the

1980’s induced a lack of confidence and less

care for maintenance, since the property and

the local memory were aggressed. It is also

true (Cartier et al., 2012) that in the case of

architectural heritage it is difficult to let the

market principles work. Indeed, not so far

away, the historical core of Lipscani in

Bucharest was restored, but without due care

for structural vulnerability, which is why, at

present, building damage is threatening the

passersby.

Fig. 5. Detail of the XIX-th century endangered architecture of the Figure 4 building (Photo E. S.

Georgescu)

Fig. 6 a. Reinforced concrete and masonry mid-rise residential buildings of the 1930’s, showing lack of maintenance (Photo E. S.

Georgescu)

Fig. 6 b. Reinforced concrete mid-rise residential buildings of the 1930’s, showing lack of maintenance (Photo E. S. Georgescu)

Fig. 7 a. Example of a fully destructured area behind the 1980’s high-rise buildings used for

ministries and government agencies (Photo E. S. Georgescu)

Fig. 7. Example of a fully destructured area, with a few new buildings and land for sale (Photo E. S.

Georgescu)



35

Fig. 8 a. High-rise buildings of the Civic Center (1980 – 1990) on Unirii Blvd. (Photo E. S.

Georgescu)

Fig. 8 b. High-rise buildings towards Libertăţii Blvd. (Photo E. S. Georgescu)

Fig. 9. Romanian Parliament Palace, the main socio-political and architectural object whose building triggered the razing of the study area


4. THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

For the existing heritage, protection is

recognized as a need for disaster prevention;

however, engineering methods are

time-consuming and less familiar to officials

and practitioners of local authorities. It is

known that after the 1977 earthquake, a survey

of damage distribution was organized in

Bucharest under the auspices of the National

Council of Science and Technology. More

than 18,000 buildings of the City of Bucharest

were investigated according to a methodology

derived on the basis of the MSK-scale

methodology (Balan et al., 1982, Sandi et al.,

2008).

These latter results were processed

additionally, leading to vulnerability functions

expressed in terms of conditional damage

distributions. Thus, the Romanian experience

to date and official census use a classification

of residential buildings on 7 material types, 6

age periods and 5 height ranges. The specific

years of code enforcements lead to the

following time spans: before 1945, 1945-1963,

1964-1970, 1971-1977, 1978-1992 and after

1992…2006.

A detailing of categories/classes was

chosen, as in (Sandi et al., 2008):

− M: material and structural system:

− M1a: RC frames, with incorporation of

some RC shear walls;

− M1b: large prefabricated RC panels;

− M1c: buildings of RC frames, with

unreinforced infill masonry walls, and

buildings of reinforced load-bearing

masonry (e.g. small columns and/or

RC ring-beams);

− M2: unreinforced masonry with RC

floors;

− M3: unreinforced masonry with

wooden floors;

− M4: wooden;

− M5: adobe or other mud-brick or clay

houses;

The stock vulnerability data were further

on adjusted in the URBASRISK Project,

because data of 1977 reflected a state of that

period, while the further earthquakes and

aging acted for about 35 years; moreover, such



36

data were needed to fit also to other building

types. To address vulnerability in the

framework of this project (URBASRISK

Project, 2012), some adjustment were

necessary, mainly:

− adjusting some histograms of 1977

categories / classes to consider effect of

subsequent damage;

− introduction of a new category M1b2, to

include many precast low-rise and mid-rise

buildings, with good behavior in 1977;

− a new category M1a include reinforced

concrete buildings designed post-1977;

− a new histogram for M1c pre-1940

high-rise buildings:

− it was chosen the histogram for M1b1 as

representative for reinforced concrete

high-rise buildings of 1946 – 1977;

It was observed a reasonable fitting of

vulnerability with the mean damage degree

GA; this is of about one unit for categories

M1b2 and M1a, two units for M5….M2b and

three units for M1c and M1b1; the mean

standard deviation is about one unit for most

categories, except M3a and M2a, where there

is a concentration of values in similar ranges,

possibly due to traditions embedded in such

buildings.

Therefore, the vulnerability was expressed

by the Mean Damage Degree, GA, with a

possibility to make corrections after visual

inspection, using the “Damage Degree

Adjusted to site”, GAMA. Such alterations

may increase or decrease the expected damage

degree by 0.5...1 degree, up to a maximum

value of 5.

Table 1. Vulnerability characterization by damage degree adjusted to site, GAMA, using a minimum of field data on physical state.

Material+ Struct. system

Adjusters

M1a

(A9)

M1b2

(A8)

M1b1

(A7)

M1c

(A6)

M2b

(A5)

M2a

(A4)

M 3b

(A3)

M3a

(A2)

M5

(A1)

Mean Damage Degree for a given

category (GA) 0.90 1.25 2.86 2.85 1.87 1.74 1.84 2.12 2.08

Irregularity on vertical

0.21 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.12

Irregularity in plan 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.18 0.18

Horizontal 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.09 0.09

Inclined at 45

0

0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.09 Cracks

Vertical 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06

Structural interventions

(tirants, buttresses, jacketing etc.)

N/A N/A -0.13 -0.12 -0.14 -0.21 -0.21 -0.26 -0.26

Damage extent 0.26 0.26 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.53

Heavy roof N/A N/A N/A 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.13 0.21 0.21

TOTAL adjustments

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Damage Degree Adjusted to site

(GAMA) 1.90 2.25 3.86 3.85 2.87 2.74 2.84 3.12 3.08



37

5. THE GEODATABASE AND MAPPING

OF SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES

The URBASRISKdb geodatabase was

created for storing the attributes of the

buildings in the study area, based on past

experience (Craifaleanu et al., 2008).These

attributes are used in the multicriterial,

multidisciplinary and multihazard analyses

within the scope of the project, for statistical

and reporting purposes, as well as for spatial

representations.

The URBASRISKdb structure includes

several interrelated data tables, containing

either features for general use across all

analyses, or features pertaining to separate

analysis criteria.

Thus, the geodatabase includes: building

identification fields (identification code,

address, geographical coordinates), fields

regarding general features of the building

(number of stories, year of construction,

typology, ownership, specific values on a scale

for historical heritage building/monument) and

fields describing the compliance of the

building with various requirements (strength

and stability, safety, serviceability, quality of

living etc.).

For the vulnerability analyses, specific

fields were also included, serving for the

following purposes:

- harmonization with building classification

systems according to the main material

used in their construction and to the

number of stories, respectively, used by the

National Institute for Statistics; this was

required for using census results

- harmonization with vulnerability classes

established by the studies performed after

the March 4, 1977 earthquake

- implementation of the observed

vulnerability classes, according to building

material type, adapted and recalibrated

based on available at INCERC from the

1977 earthquake

- introduction of the mean damage index,

GA, based on the histograms computed for

the above classes

- introduction of the site-modified damage

index, GAMA.

Each record in the URBASRISKdb

geodatabase corresponds to a building in the

study area. For geographical representation, a

simplified approach was used, consisting in

using a single point feature for each building.

To each feature, the corresponding

attributes were associated. The mapping of

actual situation of the buildings in the study

area and a database was established from

multiple sources. The basic source, i.e. the

ESRI World Street Map layer, was verified

against satellite, aerial and street views freely

available online from various providers

(Figure 10).

Fig. 10. Mapping of material / structural identifiers for structural vulnerability, with color codes in the study area, in front of Parliament Palace (left of

figure). ESRI, World Street Map (2014)

Given the dynamics of the area, the final

version of the map was obtained by also

considering information obtained by field

visits. Such visits also allow the inspection of

buildings from the point of view of their

structural vulnerability and, if applicable, the

assessment of the reduction factors required to

obtain the site-modified damage index,

GAMA, from the mean damage index, GA.

It is significant to note here that a large

part of the older buildings located in the study

area are in a very poor state, due to multiple

socio-economical factors and due to their

exposure, in the past, to multiple hazards.

Using a spatial representation, obtained

with ESRI ArcMap software, of the buildings

in the URBASRISKdb geodatabase, a number

of about 400 buildings were identified and


38

mapped, with their associated attributes

(Fig. 11).

The preliminary data have shown that

about 60% of the buildings types have the

average mean damage degree, a situation that

fits the pattern of Vrancea motions that caused

a lesser damage to low-rise and stiff masonry

houses.

This percentage must be considered as

indicative, since the visual inspection may

increase the assessed damage degree.

Fig. 11. Mapping of structural vulnerability – Damage Degree GA for considered value ranges, with color codes in the study area, in front of the Parliament Palace (left of figure). ESRI, World

Street Map (2014)

6. CONCLUSIONS

The first phases of the URBASRISK

Project allowed deriving a methodological

approach and applicative tools for:

- establishing an investigation and scaling

methodology able to answer demands of

disciplines as architectural and urban

heritage protection, salvage of community

memory in conjunction with urban heritage

value and functional value, using

affordable engineering methods for

structural vulnerability assessment and

mapping;

- taking into account the multihazard

environment of the study area;.

- provide an operative tool for vulnerability

assessment, using both past surveys

vulnerability data and inspection of

buildings for their structural vulnerability

and using some reduction or increase

factors to obtain the site-modified damage

index, GAMA, from the mean damage

index, GA;.

- mapping of specific attributes using the

URBASRISKdb geodatabase, census and

field data.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this research was provided by

the Romanian Ministry of National Education-

UEFISCDI Agency in the framework of the

National Plan for Research, Development and

Innovation, PNII, Partnership Program, Project

“Urban Blocks in Central Protected Area in

Multiple Hazard Approach - Assessment,

Mapping and Strategies for Risk Mitigation.

Case Study: Bucharest Destructured Zone by

Razing Occuring in the Communist Period”,

under Contract No. 53/2012, Project

URBASRISK.

A version of this paper was presented to

the Second European Conference on

Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,

2ECEES, August 24-29, 2014, Istanbul,

Turkey.

REFERENCES

1. Achs, G., Adam, C., A Rapid-Visual-Screening

Methodology for the Seismic Vulnerability

Assessment of Historic Brick-Masonry Buildings in

Vienna, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,

December 2012, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 1833-

1856.

2. Balan, St., Cristescu, V., Cornea, I. (Coordinators),

The Romania Earthquake of 4 March 1977 (in

Romanian), Editura Academiei, Bucharest,

Romania, 1982.

3. Benedetti, D., Benzoni, G., Parisi, M.A., Seismic

vulnerability and risk evaluation for old urban

nuclei, Earthquake Engineering & Structural

Dynamics. 16, 183–201, 1988.

4. Berg, G.V., Bolt, B.A., Sozen, M.A., Rojahn, C.,

Earthquake in Romania March 4, 1977, An

Engineering Report, National Academy Press,

Washington D.C., USA, 1980.

5. Calvi, G.M., Pinho, R., Magenes, G., Bommer, J.J.,

Restrepo-Vélez, L.F., Crowley, H., Development of

seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies

over the past 30 years, ISET Journal of Earthquake

Technology, 43, 75–104, 2006.

6. Cartier, S., Vallette, C., Mediene, H., Urban

Seismomorphoses Seismic Vulnerabilities, an

Embarrassing Legacy, Journal of Risk Analysis and



39

Crisis Response, Vol. 2, No. 2 (August 2012), 96-

106. Published by Atlantis Press.

7. Cavalcanti, M., Urban reconstruction and

autocratic regimes: Ceausescu’s Bucharest in its

historic context, Planning Perspectives, 12 (1997)

71–109, 1997.

8. Craifaleanu, I.G., Lungu, D., Văcăreanu, R.,

Anicăi, O., Aldea, A., Arion, C., Software Platform

for the Assessment of Seismic Risk in Romania,

Based on the Use of GIS Technologies, Proceedings

of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, 12-17 oct., Beijing, China, paper nr.

09-01-0165 (CD-ROM), 2008.

9. ESRI, World Street Map (2014).

http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3b9333

7983e9436f8db950e38a8629af, sources: World

Street Map Contributors,

http://help.arcgis.com/en/communitymaps/pdf/Worl

dStreetsMap_Contributors.pdf, Accessed April 11,

2014.

10. Georgescu, E.S., Borcia, I.S., Matei, C.L.,

Craifaleanu, I.G., Dragomir, C.S., Dobre, D.,

Tanase, F.N., The Skopje, Macedonia, Earthquake

of 1963 vs. Vrancea, Romania, Earthquake of 1977.

Long-Run Impacts in Earthquake Engineering,

Proc. SE-50EEE International Conference on

Earthquake Engineering - 29 to 31 May 2013 –

Skopje, FYROM / Macedonia.

11. Giurescu, D.C., The razing of Romania’s Past,

WMF, NY, US/ICOMOS, 1989.

12. Gociman, C.O., Habitat investigation – ecosystem

approach, Ion Mincu University Press, Bucharest,

Romania, 2006.

13. Gociman, C.O., Georgescu, E.S., Florescu, T.,

Architectural and Urban Planning Strategies for

Risk Management in a Protected Central Area of

Bucharest, International Conference on

Architectural Research, 120 years of Architecture

School in Romania, 18-20 May, 2012, „Ion Mincu”

University of Architecture and Urbanism

Anniversary, 2012.

14. Gociman, C.O., Florescu, T., Moscu, C.I.,

Georgescu, E.S., Decisions on Building Stock

Survival and Conservation in a Multi-Hazard

Environment: Cultural and Functional Identity vs.

Safety and Environment Values in Protected Areas,

International Conference in Climate Change,

Ecology, and Conservation (ICCCECE 2014). The

Venetian Macao, Macau, China, February 13-14,

2014.

15. Guéguen, P., Michel, C., LeCorre, L., A simplified

approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-

to-low seismic hazard regions: application to

Grenoble (France), Bulletin of Earthquake

Engineering. 5:3, 467-490, 2007.

16. Karakostas, Ch., Lekidis,. V, Kappos, A.,

Panagopoulos, G., Kontoes, Ch., Keramitsoglou, I.,

Evaluation of seismic vulnerability of buildings in

Athens and L’Aquila in the framework of the

MASSIVE seismic mitigation system, Paper 5042,

Proc. 15-th WCEE, Lisbon, 2012.

17. Lagomarsino, S., Giovinazzi, S., Macroseismic and

mechanical models for the vulnerability and

damage assessment of current buildings, Bulletin of

Earthquake Engineering. 4:4, 415–443, 2006.

18. Milutinovic, Z., Recovery of the City of Skopje

following the 1963 devastating earthquake,

RCDRS/DPRI, Kyoto University, Japan, April,

2001.

19. Rashed, T., Weeks, J., Assessing vulnerability to

earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria

analysis of urban areas, International Journal of

Geographical Information Science, vol. 17, no. 6,

547–576. Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2003.

20. Sandi, H., Pomonis, A., Francis, S., Georgescu,

E.S., Mohindra, R., Borcia, I.S., Development of a

Nationwide Seismic Vulnerability Estimation

System, Proc. Symp. Thirty Years from the

Romania Earthquake of March 4, 1977, Bucharest,

Romania, March 1-3, 2007, CONSTRUCTII Nr. 1 /

2008.

21. Sandi, H., Pomonis, A., Francis, S., Georgescu,

E.S., Mohindra, R., Borcia, I.S., A Seismic

Vulnerability Assessment. Methodological Elements

and Applications to the Case of Romania,

CONSTRUCTII. Nr. 2 / 2008

22. Taubenböck, H., The Vulnerability of a City –

Diagnosis from a Bird’s Eye View. The Tsunami

Threat - Research and Technology, Edited by Nils-

Axel Marner. pp. 107-128. ISBN 978-953-307-552-

5. Publisher InTech. Published online 29, January,

2011. Published in print edition January, 2011.

www.intechopen.com.

23. URBASRISK Project: Urban Blocks in Central

Protected Area in Multiple Hazard Approach -

Assessment, Mapping and Strategies for Risk

Mitigation. Case Study: Bucharest Destructured

Zone by Razing Occuring in the Communist Period.

Project URBASRISK, Contract No. 53/2012

UEFISCDI Agency, Romanian Ministry of

National Education,

http://www.uauim.ro/cercetare/urbasrisk/en, 2012.

24. World Bank Report No. P-2240-RO, Report and

Recommendation of the President of the

International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development to the Executive Directors on a

Proposed Loan to the Investment Bank with the

Guarantee of the Socialist Republic of Romania for

a Post Earthquake Construction Assistance Project,

17 May 1978.

Date post:	09-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

URBAN HERITAGE VALUE AND SEISMIC VULNERABILITY … · construc Ţii – no. 1 / 2015 30 urban...

Documents